Admiral Thrawn Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Virgin birth is not that big of a deal as the OP is making it out to be, certainly not as big as the creation of Adam and Eve out of the dust of the earth, where God breathed life on them. A virgin birth is less of a logical problem than the how the first human came about, so if you can believe that the first humans are created by God out of the dust, then believing a virgin birth is a lower threshold of faith. Since this thread deals strictly with the virgin birth, and not the creation of humanity in the first place, then that is the logical answer, if God created humans in the first place, then virgin birth is easy to believe as a comparson.
blind_otter Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 IMO it was a combination of things. The idea that the birth was special in some way, and the whole problem of multiple translations. There can be a controversy about a single word. עלמה, 'almah' which has been translated as young woman and as virgin. it translates at least three different Hebrew words by it: bethulah, "maiden/virgin"; `almah, "maiden/virgin"; and נערה, na`arah, "maiden, young woman, servant". Greek-English Lexicon edited by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott lists other meanings for the word: παρθενος, parthenos, I. 1. maiden, girl; virgin, opp. γυνη gynê, "woman". 2. of unmarried women who are not virgins, Iliad 2.514, etc. 3. Parthenos, hê, the Virgin Goddess, as a title of Athena at Athens. 4. the constellation Virgo. II. as adj., maiden, chaste. III. as masc., parthenos, ho, unmarried man, Apocalypse 14.4. (see Isaiha 7:14 - in modern translations, this is tranlated as "young woman" but the King James version uses the word "virgin") But you know this information is available to be research quite handily using google. I'm just retreiving it and spitting it out for you.
Author Joelle Posted July 13, 2006 Author Posted July 13, 2006 Virgin birth is not that big of a deal as the OP is making it out to be, certainly not as big as the creation of Adam and Eve out of the dust of the earth, where God breathed life on them. A virgin birth is less of a logical problem than the how the first human came about, so if you can believe that the first humans are created by God out of the dust, then believing a virgin birth is a lower threshold of faith. Since this thread deals strictly with the virgin birth, and not the creation of humanity in the first place, then that is the logical answer, if God created humans in the first place, then virgin birth is easy to believe as a comparson. I guess we differ on what's "logical" and what's "a big deal." Hmmm, do you think the world is flat? Or do you ignore scientific evidence that it's round? Similarly, I think scientific evidence discredits the Virgin Birth, and thus, Christ's divinity. Scientific evidence points that Christ was son of man, not son of God. This discredits the Christian religion. It's a big deal. Well, I don't believe in lies. I don't ignore the truth. Certainly, above all, I don't believe in false gods. Clearly, you and I have different thresholds of faith. I govern with both my intellect and my heart. I do not subordinate my intellect to mysticism and to magical thinking. I do not place faith in those matters.
konfused Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Hey Joelle, Are you aware of a book called "Breaking the Spell" by Daniel Dennett. It came out this year and provides an athropoligic history of religious development - from personal, to tribal, to actual religions. It's quite an interesting read. I recommend it to all. Back to the topic. I find it very interesting how many religious myths parallel the story of a man-god, born of a virgin to be the son of god. Dionysus and Isiris are two of many. And to whoever likened Jesus to Santa Claus, how apart the similarities between Jesus and Hercules - born of a mortal women and immortal god, spent his time on earth performing miracles, killed under false pretenses (betrayal), and lifted into heaven (constellations). Anyone ever hear of a constellation for Jesus? As far as the virgin birth is concerned it is hard for me to relate. I'm an evolutionist who believes we all came from single-celled organisms. This also makes me a materialist so its hard to believe that the spirit of Jesus can be instilled within someone. There is a academic term for virgin female birth. It is parthenogenesis. It has been observed in some lower order animals. Its a form of asexual reproduction. Maybe that's why the bible never mentions Jesus with a woman - he was asexual. Lee Stroebel is a journalist, not a scientist. Every argument he made in those books has been refuted. Hail to the Flying Spahetti Monster.
justpassingthrough Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 IMO it was a combination of things. The idea that the birth was special in some way, and the whole problem of multiple translations. There can be a controversy about a single word. (see Isaiha 7:14 - in modern translations, this is tranlated as "young woman" but the King James version uses the word "virgin") Aaaaaah, that bugger James. He would be the same fellow who had issues with the Bible as it was written because his subjects became literate, printing presses abounded, and those same folks wanted to read - and perhaps own - a Bible of their own. Sooooo, he commissioned his crew to rewrite it. It tooks seven years before it was right enough for Jimmy to "authorize" it. That would be the same James who was fond of hot young ... men.
justpassingthrough Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Back to the topic. I find it very interesting how many religious myths parallel the story of a man-god, born of a virgin to be the son of god. Dionysus and Isiris are two of many. Aren't myths (as in mythology) really religions people don't believe in anymore anyway?
Author Joelle Posted July 13, 2006 Author Posted July 13, 2006 Konfused, No, I haven't heard of the book "Breaking the Spell." I'll look into it. Thanks. There is a academic term for virgin female birth. It is parthenogenesis. It has been observed in some lower order animals. Its a form of asexual reproduction. Maybe that's why the bible never mentions Jesus with a woman - he was asexual. Yes, I heard of parthenogenesis. I heard that the offspring are female, and that parthenogenesis doesn't work for higher animals, like mammals. It works only for lower animals.
quankanne Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 the offspring are female, and that parthenogenesis doesn't work for higher animals, like mammals. It works only for lower animals. simple musings here: if parthenogenesis results only in female offspring, then wouldn't a male offspring signify something extraordinary and inexplicable is happening, which to a believer would speak of God?
Author Joelle Posted July 13, 2006 Author Posted July 13, 2006 the offspring are female, and that parthenogenesis doesn't work for higher animals, like mammals. It works only for lower animals. simple musings here: if parthenogenesis results only in female offspring, then wouldn't a male offspring signify something extraordinary and inexplicable is happening, which to a believer would speak of God? Well, intellectually, it tells me that parthenogenesis could not have produced Christ, as he was a mammal and male. Now, if I were to think mystically & magically, I could come to many imaginative, unrealistic conclusions. ANYTHING is possible with imagination. Are the conclusions accurate? Highly doubtful.
burning 4 revenge Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 IMO it was a combination of things. The idea that the birth was special in some way, and the whole problem of multiple translations. There can be a controversy about a single word. (see Isaiha 7:14 - in modern translations, this is tranlated as "young woman" but the King James version uses the word "virgin") But you know this information is available to be research quite handily using google. I'm just retreiving it and spitting it out for you. the understanding of people at the time was a literal, virgin birth. that was a well founded tradition of the mediterranean world. one has to understand that both judea and galilee had been heavily hellenized through hundreds of years of greek domination, before the romans picked palestine up during the conquests of pompey. many greek ideas would have percolated into the culture, even an insular culture such as the jews had. although i don't agree with all their assertions, The Jesus Mysteries, by Timothy Freke and James Gandy is an incredible eye-opener about parallels between the new testament and greco-roman mystery religions.
burning 4 revenge Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 and if jesus was asexual, it's possible he had made himself a eunuch, as implied in the gospel of mathew
flavius Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Yes, accepting this fact is key. Please refer to my post #11. A true Christian must accept the Virgin Birth. Christians tout Christ to be Son OF GOD, not Son of Man. If Christ was Son of Man, he would be human, and be born with Original Sin. He himself would need to be saved. He would not be the the pure lamb God sent to be sacrificed for humanity. He would not be the Messiah. He would not be God in the flesh. Christianity would be a sham. Also, if Mary was not a virgin, and lain with another man, she would be an impure vessel, as supposedly she was pregnant with Christ before she was engaged to Joseph. Additionally, Christ would be considered a lowly bastard (fathered by who knows who), and Mary a lowly adultress, as she had sex outside of marriage. Thus, accepting the Virgin Birth as fact is very, very significant. Otherwise, Christianity would be DISCREDITED. The main significance of the Virgin Birth for THIS discussion is a generalized concern about the inerrancy of scripture. Beyond that, it is a triviality in the mind of a non-believer, and not an issue of salvation for the believer. Did Jesus ever say one must believe anything particular about his Mama? No. In fact the Bible and Christians DO refer to Jesus as the Son of Man, as do the Hebrew prophecies of the coming Messiah. The idea that the Messiah would be God-in-the-Flesh dawned with Jesus himself -- "Messiah" had no divine implications before Jesus, and even then, very little until after the resurrection. But being human is the whole idea. A man fully human, whose identity was the very soul of God. Also, Jesus ancestry includes a bunch of lowly adulterers/adultresses (Abraham & Sarah w/Abimelech and the King Egypt, Judah & daughter-n-law Tamar, Joshua and ex-prostitute Rahab, David & Uzziah's wife Bathsheba. And that doesn't count polygamists, and all the unions that didn't fetch a baby!) The main thing about the virgin birth is not that a baby (or anyone else) is defiled by the sexual intercourse that brings conception. Where would someone even get that idea? The significance is that Jesus' father was God. It happens that he chose a young virgin, just as men of that day chose to have children with young virgins. Heck, do you think he should have popped in on some guy's wife and inseminated her? Has it occured to anyone that Mary would have had a danged hard time knowing that the child was conceived of God if she had been slapping skin with a man a couple of times a week?
burning 4 revenge Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 i truly am beginning to think this is my my favorite section in this forum. it certainly is the most interesting, and i am impressed with the responses of some of the posters. flavius, have you ever heard of the apocalypse of the messiah? written sometime before 50 B.C. and discovered in the highly famous cave 4 at qumran it reads as follows The heavens and the earth will listen to His Messiah and none therein will stray from the commandments of the holy ones...For the Lord will consider the pious and call the righteous by name. Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power....He...liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the bent...The Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been..(untranslatable)..He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news to the poor. these ideas were present almost a century and possibly even more before jesus and his ministry
magichands Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Has it occured to anyone that Mary would have had a danged hard time knowing that the child was conceived of God if she had been slapping skin with a man a couple of times a week? That is such an excellent point.
konfused Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Do you think god has a superdick? Was Mary feeling pleasure during this ordeal? Was it an actual physical act (however that may be)? Or was it done without violating the laws of nature - that is by parthenogenesis? Whose sperm did god use? Was it his? Where does he keep it? If god and jesus are the same, did jesus object at all about having to do his mom? Did jesus like to rub one off from time to time? All valid questions when your god is a human. Does anyone know of the word METAPHOR? Thank goodness all this crazy talk is coming to an end.
burning 4 revenge Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Do you think god has a superdick? Was Mary feeling pleasure during this ordeal? Was it an actual physical act (however that may be)? Or was it done without violating the laws of nature - that is by parthenogenesis? Whose sperm did god use? Was it his? Where does he keep it? If god and jesus are the same, did jesus object at all about having to do his mom? Did jesus like to rub one off from time to time? All valid questions when your god is a human. Does anyone know of the word METAPHOR? Thank goodness all this crazy talk is coming to an end. if she was feeling pleasure, would she be like "Oh God! Oh God! Ohhhhh my Gaaawwwd!!!":lmao::lmao::lmao:
norajane Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 That is such an excellent point. Pardon my ignorance...by why did Mary need to know? Would Jesus never have become Jesus if she was unaware? There are no stories of his childhood or teen years...why not?
Admiral Thrawn Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 I guess we differ on what's "logical" and what's "a big deal." The original question on this thread was whether if Christians have questioned the validity of this doctrine based on science. I think it's sort of a crazy thread because you may as well challenge all aspects of faith with science rather than just virgin birth. The point is, you either believe something or you don't, it's as simple as that. So, this just becomes, another clicheed science vs religion where you get two polarised factions that cant agree with each other and argue until the cows come home. If we are talking in strictly theological terms, then what other posters have said are correct that virgin birth is theologically necessary as a premise of the Christian faith and fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies based on Isaiah and other books in the bible. Hmmm, do you think the world is flat? Or do you ignore scientific evidence that it's round? The Bible says it's round. It's in the book of Isaiah somewhere, if you want, I'll quote it your or anyone's request. Similarly, I think scientific evidence discredits the Virgin Birth, and thus, Christ's divinity. Scientific evidence points that Christ was son of man, not son of God. This discredits the Christian religion. It's a big deal. Like I said before, this is nothing more than another clicheed science vs. religious arguement, and is rather a boring thing. Again, you either believe something or your dont. I believe the bible because it's coherent - and I have read a good part of the bible myself and understand what it is saying. Well, I don't believe in lies. I don't ignore the truth. Certainly, above all, I don't believe in false gods. Sure, you dont believe in lies that you are aware are lies. You dont ignore the truth as long as it suits your structure of beliefs and makes sence to you. But, what is the truth? Jesus said, that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Therefore, apart from Jesus, there is no truth, just lies. Clearly, you and I have different thresholds of faith. I govern with both my intellect and my heart. I do not subordinate my intellect to mysticism and to magical thinking. I do not place faith in those matters. This is another religion vs science - as one book has pointed out, you have to conclude that Jesus is a Lunatic, a Liar, or He is the Son of god - or you cant have your cake and eat it too. If you dont believe Jesus is the Son of God, then that either makes Him a liar for His claims of equality of God, or that makes Him a lunatic - but certainly not a prophet, or a good man. I know that Jesus is the Son of God, born virgin birth, of the lineage of David, Abraham and Adam, and is the promised Messiah in Genesis 3:15 - and is in typology throughout the OT bible through sacrifices in the Temple for atonement of sin, and as written by the law and the prophets. He is the light of the world full of darkness.
burning 4 revenge Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 he would be a lunatic, or a liar in the context of the modern world. in the context of his world, he could have been a completely rational man who thought he was the son of god.
Author Joelle Posted July 13, 2006 Author Posted July 13, 2006 he would be a lunatic, or a liar in the context of the modern world. in the context of his world, he could have been a completely rational man who thought he was the son of god. I agree. This leads me to question the truth of the Bible. Truth is timeless, and will stand-up to the test of time and to examination. Lies do not.
burning 4 revenge Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 I wasn't saying Jesus was a liar. I was refering to the previous post which stated that if he wasn't what he claimed to be he could only be interpreted as a lunatic, or a liar. That just isn't true. People in those times lived in a totally different universe than the one we live in. It was a universe where everything was explained supernaturally, there were the seeds of science, but real science did not exist yet. He could have believed he was the son of god and not been insane, or trying to intentionally decieve people. He was just interpreting his existence as he saw it
Author Joelle Posted July 13, 2006 Author Posted July 13, 2006 I wasn't saying Jesus was a liar. I was refering to the previous post which stated that if he wasn't what he claimed to be he could only be interpreted as a lunatic, or a liar. That just isn't true. People in those times lived in a totally different universe than the one we live in. It was a universe where everything was explained supernaturally, there were the seeds of science, but real science did not exist yet. He could have believed he was the son of god and not been insane, or trying to intentionally decieve people. He was just interpreting his existence as he saw it Okay. In light of your input, let me modify my words. Instead of "lies," I will use "untruths."
bluetuesday Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 Christians tout Christ to be Son OF GOD, not Son of Man. If Christ was Son of Man, he would be human, and be born with Original Sin. He himself would need to be saved. He would not be the the pure lamb God sent to be sacrificed for humanity. He would not be the Messiah. He would not be God in the flesh. Christianity would be a sham. there is so much in this i could go at, it would literally take all day. this whole post, for me, speaks volumes about what is wrong with christianity, and the world in general. i am NOT having a go at you, i'm just saying. perhaps jesus WAS born of a man. perhaps he came to show us that we are NOT filthy sinners. perhaps he came to show us that we have the power to save ourselves. perhaps he came to teach us that to lie with a man doesn't make you an impure vessel. perhaps the idea of blood sacrifice was thought up after the resurrection of christ, as a throw back to the old jewish tradition that god could be appeased through the murder of innocents and to convince mankind we needed a sacrificial saviour. perhaps the idea that it doesn't matter how you live as long as you believe jesus died for your sins is the sham. perhaps god really did intend that we don't have to grow spiritually because we think someone 2,000 years ago wrote a blank cheque (yes, that is the english spelling) for all the sins we had ever committed and all the sins we would ever commit. perhaps it is more important to prevent a man-made religion from being seen as open to question than it is to seek the truth. Thus, accepting the Virgin Birth as fact is very, very significant. Otherwise, Christianity would be DISCREDITED. only if you believe god doesn't have the power to create a son out of a human being. or if you believe christianity is infallible and beyond question. do you think god wants a non-questioning, non-seeking flock? i wonder.
Outcast Posted July 13, 2006 Posted July 13, 2006 People with terran brains only just barely evolved keep trying to understand a Being that's timeless. A few hundred years ago you'd be insisting that 'science' PROVED the sun revolved around the earth. Science was wrong then is wrong about things today, and will continue to be wrong about things. Things I was taught were absolutely true in grade school have already been proven wrong. So don't think you can stand so firmly on science to make your pronouncements. Science is shifting sand, just like everthing human is.
Recommended Posts